Talk Elections

Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Congressional Elections => Topic started by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 27, 2011, 01:29:06 PM



Title: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 27, 2011, 01:29:06 PM
Breaking news.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: RogueBeaver on December 27, 2011, 01:33:58 PM
Likely R --> Safe R.  I doubt Kerrey's running again- though if he did either a) Bruning would have to become more disciplined or b) Heinemann would have to jump in.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Miles on December 27, 2011, 02:34:41 PM
Good. The DSCC can spend that money in more winnable contests.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Brittain33 on December 27, 2011, 02:45:57 PM
He was dead man walking.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 27, 2011, 02:46:07 PM
R+1.

Good thing too. I'd rather spend money on Brown, Baldwin, Warren, etc.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: hawkeye59 on December 27, 2011, 02:59:34 PM
Good. The DSCC can spend that money in more winnable contests.
Ben Nelson is a Democrat?


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Keystone Phil on December 27, 2011, 03:00:39 PM
Great. There was still a tiny lingering doubt about this seat. I greatly prefer guaranteed pick ups even though this means the DSCC can devote more to other states but that also frees up cash for the NRSC.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 27, 2011, 03:11:33 PM
Great. There was still a tiny lingering doubt about this seat. I greatly prefer guaranteed pick ups even though this means the DSCC can devote more to other states but that also frees up cash for the NRSC.

Not quite. You guys still have to deal with a primary, which takes money from other races (though the NRSC won't have to spend)


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 27, 2011, 03:28:39 PM
Stop trolling, Ben Nelson


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Keystone Phil on December 27, 2011, 03:54:03 PM
Great. There was still a tiny lingering doubt about this seat. I greatly prefer guaranteed pick ups even though this means the DSCC can devote more to other states but that also frees up cash for the NRSC.

Not quite. You guys still have to deal with a primary, which takes money from other races (though the NRSC won't have to spend)

I don't see a reason why they'd have to spend money there now.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: memphis on December 27, 2011, 05:17:47 PM
Hard to see the Dems holding this seat with or without Nelson.  Has Kerrey made any comments on his willingness to run again? He's the only hope for the Dems now. On the GOP side, Bruning used to be a liberal. Maybe the shadowy organizations that get to spend all the money they want could attack him as a flip-flopper or whatever. Probably more effective to worry with more competitve states like MO and MA.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Frodo on December 27, 2011, 05:35:18 PM
Good -he won't be missed.  I am done with DINOs like him. 


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Niemeyerite on December 27, 2011, 06:35:54 PM
I think Bob Kerrey will decide against running.

R+0.5


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: redcommander on December 27, 2011, 08:03:30 PM
These Senate Democrats are dropping like flies. Who's next? The other Nelson perhaps?


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 27, 2011, 08:05:39 PM
These Senate Democrats are dropping like flies. Who's next? The other Nelson perhaps?

Not likely.  He'll win pretty handily.  Not a landslide, but it'll be comfortable.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: RogueBeaver on December 27, 2011, 08:40:38 PM
So now the title of "most endangered Senate Democrat" shifts to either Tester or McCaskill. Though unlike Nelson, that title has little to do with their voting records.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 27, 2011, 09:15:23 PM
I think Bob Kerrey will decide against running.

R+0.5

Bob Kerrey wouldn't get elected a dogcatcher now in Nebraska. He had his chance to remain in the Senate for at least two terms (he'd be certainly reelected in both 2000 and 2006), but now he's just another New Yorker, at least to Mr. Average Nebraskan.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on December 27, 2011, 10:03:43 PM
Good riddance. He was a total DINO. And before anyone claims that he's the best Senator possible from Nebraska, his predecessor was more liberal, and was one of only 13 nay votes on DOMA.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: DrScholl on December 27, 2011, 10:22:21 PM
Well, that frees up money for other states that need it.

And to those attacking Nelson, don't whine about his successor or if the Republicans take the Senate, you gave up your right to whine by being purists.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on December 28, 2011, 01:25:57 AM
Well, that frees up money for other states that need it.

And to those attacking Nelson, don't whine about his successor or if the Republicans take the Senate, you gave up your right to whine by being purists.

I don't think people have a problem with Nelson's conservatism per se (you don't see them grumbling about Pryor or Landrieu) but rather his eagerness to screw his party at every chance he got. And his retirement is another one of them.
If he really cared about the Democrats retaining the Senate then the least he could do would be to dissuade them from spending 1 million dollars in ads propping him up while he was considering retirement.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on December 28, 2011, 03:05:53 AM

Good assessment.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 28, 2011, 08:56:15 AM
Whether he was running again or not, his seat is lost. It's better to just give it up than wasting money needed in other races.

I didn't like Nelson, but I agree with DrScholl he was still better than and Republican to replace him (which says a lot about Democratic Party in Nebraska, sadly).


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Niemeyerite on December 28, 2011, 09:42:00 AM
I think Scott Kleeb could make this interesting... in 2006, he lost by 10 points in the most conservative district in Nebraska (which I think is R+24 or something like that)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kleeb


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 28, 2011, 09:49:13 AM
I think Scott Kleeb could make this interesting... in 2006, he lost by 10 points in the most conservative district in Nebraska (which I think is R+24 or something like that)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kleeb

2006 was a Democratic year and, due to this, he just outperformed. Good luck winning statewide in Nebraska in a presidential election year. We can't predict final results now, but even if Obama is reelected in a nationwide landslide, he won't have coattails in Nebraska. It's just hoping for Obama coattails in Utah.

Just accept the reality.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Hash on December 28, 2011, 09:58:36 AM
I think Scott Kleeb could make this interesting... in 2006, he lost by 10 points in the most conservative district in Nebraska (which I think is R+24 or something like that)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kleeb

Quit grasping at straws. The seat is lost. Move on.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 28, 2011, 10:49:50 AM
I think Scott Kleeb could make this interesting... in 2006, he lost by 10 points in the most conservative district in Nebraska (which I think is R+24 or something like that)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kleeb

Kleeb is a handsome nobody who has a lot of political experience when it comes to losing elections.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: DrScholl on December 28, 2011, 11:34:25 AM
Same way Republicans won't be winning Hawaii next year, this really is not a seat for Democrats to win next year. Situations like this happen on both sides, it's just how it goes.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Brittain33 on December 28, 2011, 11:42:21 AM
I don't think people have a problem with Nelson's conservatism per se (you don't see them grumbling about Pryor or Landrieu) but rather his eagerness to screw his party at every chance he got. And his retirement is another one of them.
If he really cared about the Democrats retaining the Senate then the least he could do would be to dissuade them from spending 1 million dollars in ads propping him up while he was considering retirement.

I didn't particularly dislike Nelson and he would be preferable to any successor. Of course a Dem senator from Nebraska has a different role to play and he gets a lot of leeway. What was galling was his many unforced errors. He seemed to pick the wrong battles with the national Dems when the right strategy would have been just to keep his mouth shut on them or to pick other battles where he could prove his independence in line with what his conservative voters wanted and not be so blatant about supporting a few donors.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 28, 2011, 12:09:24 PM
I don't think people have a problem with Nelson's conservatism per se (you don't see them grumbling about Pryor or Landrieu) but rather his eagerness to screw his party at every chance he got. And his retirement is another one of them.

Nonsense. Nelson can run again and lose, but DSCC would have to waste money on this race that can be used by other Democrats that actually need it. Whatever his motives are, Nelson did actually a good thing for the party by retiring.

Evan Bayh was the one fitting this description.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on December 28, 2011, 12:31:20 PM
I don't think people have a problem with Nelson's conservatism per se (you don't see them grumbling about Pryor or Landrieu) but rather his eagerness to screw his party at every chance he got. And his retirement is another one of them.

Nonsense. Nelson can run again and lose, but DSCC would have to waste money on this race that can be used by other Democrats that actually need it. Whatever his motives are, Nelson did actually a good thing for the party by retiring.

Evan Bayh was the one fitting this description.

The DSCC didn't spend a million dollars on Bayh.
But I won't disagree with you that Bayh was a bigger jerk than Nelson.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 28, 2011, 02:30:04 PM
I don't think people have a problem with Nelson's conservatism per se (you don't see them grumbling about Pryor or Landrieu) but rather his eagerness to screw his party at every chance he got. And his retirement is another one of them.

Nonsense. Nelson can run again and lose, but DSCC would have to waste money on this race that can be used by other Democrats that actually need it. Whatever his motives are, Nelson did actually a good thing for the party by retiring.

Evan Bayh was the one fitting this description.

The DSCC didn't spend a million dollars on Bayh.

Bayh didn't need millions to keep his seat. Nelson would need a lot of money to even try and, still, that would be a longshot.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Mechaman on December 28, 2011, 04:19:49 PM
I think Scott Kleeb could make this interesting... in 2006, he lost by 10 points in the most conservative district in Nebraska (which I think is R+24 or something like that)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kleeb

Oh right isn't that the same guy who did worse than Obama did statewide in 2008? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Nebraska,_2008)?

Yeah, he would be extremely competitive in 2012!


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Niemeyerite on December 28, 2011, 06:23:59 PM
I think Scott Kleeb could make this interesting... in 2006, he lost by 10 points in the most conservative district in Nebraska (which I think is R+24 or something like that)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kleeb

Oh right isn't that the same guy who did worse than Obama did statewide in 2008? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Nebraska,_2008)?

Yeah, he would be extremely competitive in 2012!

Against a popular governor, yes.

I'm not saying Kleeb will win, only that he could make the race somewhat interesting, not that he'll win. But Bruning is facing some ethical investigations and Stenberg has lost many elections, too, so I don't think dems should give up in Nebraska. Hey, republicans can still nominate someone like Santorum or Paul, which would help democrats everywhere.



Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: RodPresident on December 28, 2011, 06:28:30 PM
My candidate would be Ernie Chambers...He'd bring at least national media to Nebraska...


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 28, 2011, 07:57:19 PM
My candidate would be Ernie Chambers...He'd bring at least national media to Nebraska...

Ernie's not a Democrat. He's independent.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on December 28, 2011, 08:40:43 PM
Good -he won't be missed.  I am done with DINOs like him. 

A "DINO" that votes with the party 50% of the time is better than the Republican replacement that votes with us 10% of the time. We need Blue Dogs. They moderate Congress and enable us to pass legislation. The reason the current Republican House is so far-right is because we bled moderates and replaced them with far-right conservatives.

Damn party purity. I want effective government.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Ogre Mage on December 28, 2011, 11:19:10 PM
This seat is now a Republican pickup, but it probably was anyway.  If we are concerned with saving centrist Democrats, Tester and McCaskill are more important in my view.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 29, 2011, 10:03:23 AM
This seat is now a Republican pickup, but it probably was anyway.  If we are concerned with saving centrist Democrats, Tester and McCaskill are more important in my view.

Um... since when Nelson was a "centrist" in first place.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Niemeyerite on December 29, 2011, 10:50:06 AM
What about Wareen Buffett?? ahahaha

Oh, and if democrats don't want to try to make this close... I think the best candidate is Ernie Chambers, too. He's funny :)


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 29, 2011, 12:41:30 PM
What about Wareen Buffett?? ahahaha

Oh, and if democrats don't want to try to make this close... I think the best candidate is Ernie Chambers, too. He's funny :)

Ernie is an extremely rare example of someone who never goes higher than state legislator, yet maintained nationwide presence.

Oh, Ernie ran for Senator in 1988... on the Natural Law ballot.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: FloridaRepublican on December 29, 2011, 01:40:53 PM
This seat was inevitably going to switch hands.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: RodPresident on December 29, 2011, 03:04:07 PM
Ernie ran on New Alliance ticket, but this doesn't matters. Ernie can run as Independent and he can get a 2nd place, if Democrats place a nobody guy.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Ogre Mage on December 29, 2011, 03:31:13 PM
This seat is now a Republican pickup, but it probably was anyway.  If we are concerned with saving centrist Democrats, Tester and McCaskill are more important in my view.

Um... since when Nelson was a "centrist" in first place.

http://nationaljournal.com/magazine/house-and-senate-centrists-20110224?page=1 (http://nationaljournal.com/magazine/house-and-senate-centrists-20110224?page=1)


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Niemeyerite on December 29, 2011, 05:08:55 PM
Wikipedia says he ran for governor once and got 0.44% of the vote. Does anyone know WHEN that happened??


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: RodPresident on December 29, 2011, 08:14:40 PM
Against Nelson in 1994. In that Republican year, he won amazing 73.03%. Now, one of most unbelievable results in history was Nelson's defeat against Hagel, in 1996, even in a Republican state. It's very sad that a state who gave us the liberal icon (even if a Republican) George Norris is now a safe hard-right land.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Bacon King on December 29, 2011, 11:55:16 PM
Dammit Ben Nelson. So the stupid Nebraska earmarks to Obamacare and all the shallow Moderate Heroism over the past several years was entirely meaningless?

Kleeb is probably the best Democratic candidate now, although that's not really saying much at all.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on December 30, 2011, 02:31:52 AM
Not suprising, but still very much disappointing


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: Nichlemn on December 31, 2011, 09:58:42 PM
Ugh, freeing up money is not a good argument since it applies to both sides. That is, unless you think Democrats would be prone to stupidly overspend on Nelson, in which case why do you assume they wouldn't stupidly spend the money that was freed up?

It's one of those nonsensical "silver lining" arguments people come up with to comfort themselves. Hey, why don't the Democrats just try to lose every seat, since then they won't have any incumbents to waste resources on!11!1


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: RodPresident on December 31, 2011, 11:53:48 PM
I think that Democrats should hold Kleeb's bullet for 2014's gubernatorial election. He can get senatorial spot later. If Johanns be a 3-term, he'll be only 51 at 2026, that's a good age.


Title: Re: Ben Nelson to not run again
Post by: rbt48 on January 07, 2012, 01:01:40 AM
I don't know if he is interested, but I think the strongest Democratic candidate would be State Senator Steve Lathrop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Lathrop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Lathrop)).  He has been elected twice in a strongly Republican west Omaha district.  I have not heard his name mentioned as a possible contender.  He is term limited and cannot seek reelection to the Unicameral in 2014.


Title: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: DrScholl on January 07, 2012, 02:07:49 PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/david-catanese/2012/01/gallegly-to-retire-109956.html

Not surprising at all, really.


Title: Re: Rep. Elton Gallegly not seeking re-election
Post by: Joe Republic on January 07, 2012, 02:16:56 PM
Let's see if he sticks to it this time.


Title: Re: Rep. Elton Gallegly not seeking re-election
Post by: minionofmidas on January 07, 2012, 02:29:19 PM
He didn't exactly get a friendly district.


Title: Re: Rep. Elton Gallegly not seeking re-election
Post by: redcommander on January 07, 2012, 11:32:25 PM
This is pretty good news for Republicans. Gallegly was far too conservative for the new district, and this opens the opportunity for a more moderate Republican to run and hopefully hold the seat. There's no shortage of potential candidates in Ventura.


Title: Re: Rep. Elton Gallegly not seeking re-election
Post by: smoltchanov on January 08, 2012, 02:40:41 PM
Yes, but i wouldn't call the most likely Republican candidate (Strickland) anymore more moderate then Gallegly. IMHO - he is even more conservative....


Title: Herger (CA-02) to anounce retirement.
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on January 10, 2012, 08:28:52 AM
http://www.redding.com/news/2012/jan/09/herger-announce-retirement-lamalfa-run-his-seat/ (http://www.redding.com/news/2012/jan/09/herger-announce-retirement-lamalfa-run-his-seat/)

After a quarter century representing the north state, U.S. Rep. Wally Herger will announce today he is planning to retire at the end of his current term and state Sen. Doug LaMalfa will be running for his seat.

“Senator LaMalfa is running for Congress, and will do so with the endorsement of Congressman Herger,” GOP consultant Dave Gilliard told Jon Fleischman of Flash Report, an influential California political blog.

Sources told the Record Searchlight late Monday LaMalfa is first expected to announce his entrance to the Congressional race to his staff in Sacramento before going public later in the morning. A similar meeting is to be held in Washington among Herger’s staff members, sources said.


Title: Re: Herger (CA-02) to anounce retirement.
Post by: minionofmidas on January 10, 2012, 08:58:48 AM
Not related to redistricting, by the way.


Title: Re: Herger (CA-02) to anounce retirement.
Post by: redcommander on January 10, 2012, 04:55:46 PM
Safe Republican.


Title: Re: Herger (CA-02) to anounce retirement.
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 10, 2012, 08:56:38 PM
Jerry Lewis (CA-somewhere in the 30s, I think) is also rumored to be retiring soon.


Title: Re: Herger (CA-02) to anounce retirement.
Post by: I'm JewCon in name only. on January 10, 2012, 09:22:12 PM
Thank you for your long service congressman! :)


Title: Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA-41) to retire
Post by: Tender Branson on January 12, 2012, 01:36:22 PM
U.S. Rep. Jerry Lewis, who has represented Inland Southern California in Washington for more than three decades and steered hundreds of millions in federal funds to the fast-changing region, announced Thursday he will step down from Congress at the end of the year.

“After months of consultation with loved ones and family, my wife Arlene and I have decided to retire from public life,” Lewis, R-Redlands said in a statement. “We are deeply grateful to so many who have provided their support over the years. I have worked hard to justify that support. Thank you all and may God continue to bless America.”

Lewis, R-Redlands, becomes the latest in a string of senior California Republicans to announce their retirements in recent days, signaling major changes to the state’s congressional delegation. His announcement has significant implications on a pair of races for Inland House seats this fall and is certain to trigger a series of candidacy declarations in the hours and days to come.

A lifelong resident of San Bernardino County, Lewis was elected to the California Assembly in 1968. There, he penned landmark legislation creating the South Coast Air Quality Management District and was influential in the establishment of the California Newsman’s Shield Law.

http://www.pe.com/local-news/politics/ben-goad-headlines/20120112-2012-elections-veteran-rep.-lewis-to-retire.ece

Safe GOP district.


Title: Re: Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA-41) to retire
Post by: I'm JewCon in name only. on January 12, 2012, 01:58:24 PM
good riddance :)


Title: Re: Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA-41) to retire
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on January 12, 2012, 01:58:39 PM
Can't say I'm surprised.


Title: Re: Herger (CA-02) to anounce retirement.
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on January 12, 2012, 01:59:42 PM
Apparently he ran unopposed some years in the general. That's how weak the Dems are in that district.


Title: Re: Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA-41) to retire
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 12, 2012, 06:11:30 PM
Time for a celebration.


Title: Re: Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA-41) to retire
Post by: krazen1211 on January 12, 2012, 09:10:52 PM
So Dreier quits or shifts to 8, and Gary Miller shifts to 31?


Title: Re: Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA-41) to retire
Post by: Torie on January 13, 2012, 03:04:56 PM
So Dreier quits or shifts to 8, and Gary Miller shifts to 31?

Miller is going to run in the Redlands-San Bernadino CD (is that CA-31?), and I suspect will be somewhat of an underdog. Drier has not announced what he is going to do, but his fundraising last quarter was anemic.  I am not sure he would win a primary in the Victorville-Adelanto based CD if that is CA-08.


Title: Re: Herger (CA-02) to anounce retirement.
Post by: HAnnA MArin County on January 15, 2012, 01:40:27 AM
Apparently he ran unopposed some years in the general. That's how weak the Dems are in that district.

Are the demographics changing in this portion of the state, because I read somewhere where this race was one of the handful of races where a Republican incumbent (Herger) did worse in 2010, a big Republican year, than in 2008 (a big Democratic year).. or was Herger just a terrible candidate?


Title: Re: Herger (CA-02) to anounce retirement.
Post by: DrScholl on January 15, 2012, 02:05:44 AM
There were rumors during the campaign that he is in the opening stages of Alzheimer's Disease, but there was no confirmation of that, but I would imagine that's why he underperformed.


Title: Re: Herger (CA-02) to anounce retirement.
Post by: minionofmidas on January 15, 2012, 06:40:31 AM
That would also explain why he retired. He's not that old - 66. Looks older, though. He also had a semi-serious primary challenger in 2010.

Fun fact: Herger's four worst performances are, in order

2010
2008
1986 (his first election)
1988

These are the only times he received under 60% of the vote.


Title: Todd Platts (R-PA) is retiring.
Post by: Keystone Phil on January 17, 2012, 03:42:20 PM
Republican PA Congressman Todd Platts is retiring. Very surprising. Platts is known for having a bit of a moderate streak in a very conservative, safe GOP seat. That will certainly be an interesting open seat primary.


Title: Re: Todd Platts (R-PA) is retiring.
Post by: AndrewTX on January 17, 2012, 04:22:04 PM
Well, that's shocking. I thought he was going to hang in there for a few more years. It'll be an interesting race if he doesnt. 

Speaking of 2012 races, does anyone have a map of the 2012 PA districts? I know I'm going to be taken out of PA-5, and probably put into being represented by Marino, but cant find anything.


Title: Re: Todd Platts (R-PA) is retiring.
Post by: Keystone Phil on January 17, 2012, 04:33:39 PM
Check out the PA Redistricting thread in the Political Geography and Demographics thread for the map. Otherwise, check out the state's official redistricting website: http://www.redistricting.state.pa.us/ (http://www.redistricting.state.pa.us/)


Title: Re: Todd Platts (R-PA) is retiring.
Post by: Napoleon on January 17, 2012, 04:34:59 PM
PoliticsPA has them.

()

http://www.politicspa.com/pas-new-congressional-maps/30096/ (http://www.politicspa.com/pas-new-congressional-maps/30096/)


Title: Re: Todd Platts (R-PA) is retiring.
Post by: redcommander on January 17, 2012, 05:10:21 PM
At least it's a safe Republican seat.


Title: Re: Todd Platts (R-PA) is retiring.
Post by: Miles on January 17, 2012, 05:24:05 PM
He voted with the GOP leadership 89% of the time; not really 'moderate', but thats pretty low relative to the rest of the caucus.


Title: Re: Todd Platts (R-PA) is retiring.
Post by: Keystone Phil on January 17, 2012, 05:37:59 PM
He voted with the GOP leadership 89% of the time; not really 'moderate', but thats pretty low relative to the rest of the caucus.

Which is why I used "streak." He was also known for angling for a spot in the Obama Administration.


Title: Re: Todd Platts (R-PA) is retiring.
Post by: nkpatel1279 on January 17, 2012, 06:30:09 PM
Who was a better Representative for PA-19 Platts or Goodling.


Title: Re: Todd Platts (R-PA) is retiring.
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 17, 2012, 09:27:55 PM
Who was a better Representative for PA-19 Platts or Goodling.

yes


Title: NY-22: Maurice Hinchey retiring
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 18, 2012, 02:33:10 PM
Breaking from POLITICO.


Title: Re: NY-22: Maurice Hinchey retiring
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 18, 2012, 02:37:05 PM
R +1


Title: Re: NY-22: Maurice Hinchey retiring
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 18, 2012, 02:39:49 PM
His old rival George Phillips is probably running again. New Yorkers, who'll jump in for the Democrats?


Title: Re: NY-22: Maurice Hinchey retiring
Post by: Napoleon on January 18, 2012, 04:30:51 PM
Disappointing.


Title: Re: NY-22: Maurice Hinchey retiring
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 18, 2012, 05:27:43 PM
WaPo said his district could be up for elimination now.


Title: Re: NY-22: Maurice Hinchey retiring
Post by: cinyc on January 18, 2012, 05:45:31 PM
WaPo said his district could be up for elimination now.

Eliminating an Upstate Democrat and NYC-area Republican is theoretically doable, though the VRA and geography makes eliminating Turner's NY-09 a little harder than it may look, and he'd probably end up running against an incumbent Democrat in whatever district picks up his areas.  Plus, if Turner's election was a lucky fluke, you'd arguably be getting rid of two Democratic districts by eliminating NY-09.

One way it would work would be to use portions of NY-22 to make a Republican-leaning Upstate district Democratic-leaning.  Hinchey's district sucks up more Democratic-leaning areas of the Southern Tier.


Title: Re: NY-22: Maurice Hinchey retiring
Post by: Brittain33 on January 18, 2012, 06:01:27 PM
Torie, are you disappointed? :)


Title: Re: NY-22: Maurice Hinchey retiring
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 18, 2012, 06:43:43 PM
WaPo said his district could be up for elimination now.

It's possible, but how do they distribute it? It's surrounded by swing districts held by Republicans. I don't think Hanna's going to want to take on Ithaca, for example.


Title: Re: NY-22: Maurice Hinchey retiring
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 19, 2012, 12:03:12 AM
What about Ulster, though?


Title: Re: NY-22: Maurice Hinchey retiring
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 19, 2012, 01:11:00 AM
I have a feeling a court would probably eliminate this district anyway, since there's no community of interest whatsoever to it, it's just a bunch of leftovers plus college towns neighboring Republican incumbents didn't want.


Title: Re: NY-22: Maurice Hinchey retiring
Post by: smoltchanov on January 19, 2012, 02:47:25 AM
Phillips is hardly the best candidate for this Democratic-leaning district. But most likely it will be dismantled during redistricting - that will piss no one and may even please most)))


Title: Re: NY-22: Maurice Hinchey retiring
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on January 19, 2012, 10:13:18 AM

Well, the closest Democratic district is the Albany one, but the population dynamics there really don't work without severe gerrymandering that would likely have the side-effect of screwing over Schenectady. I'd be interested in seeing parts of that area used to screw over Nan Hayworth, but that's probably not very likely.


Title: Re: NY-22: Maurice Hinchey retiring
Post by: minionofmidas on January 19, 2012, 10:30:38 AM
Any chance this retirement means there's progress on the map? (As in, Hinchey is retiring because his district is being eliminated, rather than the other way round.)


Title: Re: Todd Platts (R-PA) is retiring.
Post by: minionofmidas on January 19, 2012, 10:34:19 AM
Very strong lean Republican. There was no room to create any seats that would technically qualify as safe while protecting that many incumbents.


Title: Re: Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA-41) to retire
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 19, 2012, 11:53:21 AM
*tries to refrain from making a joke about a certain individual who attends Redlands University and would be even worse than Lewis*


Title: Re: Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA-41) to retire
Post by: Sbane on January 19, 2012, 01:48:40 PM
So Dreier quits or shifts to 8, and Gary Miller shifts to 31?

Miller is going to run in the Redlands-San Bernadino CD (is that CA-31?), and I suspect will be somewhat of an underdog. Drier has not announced what he is going to do, but his fundraising last quarter was anemic.  I am not sure he would win a primary in the Victorville-Adelanto based CD if that is CA-08.

Drier should move to Rancho and run in the new 31st, try to say nice things about Hispanics in Spanish media to depress turnout in SBD, and he would have a fighting chance. Miller would lose that district every single time. He seems like a douche. He should maybe move to Apple Valley and run in the desert district.


Title: Re: Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA-41) to retire
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 19, 2012, 02:51:52 PM
*tries to refrain from making a joke about a certain individual who attends Redlands University and would be even worse than Lewis*

A certain Redlands University student's Congressman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_McCarthy_(California_politician))


Title: Re: Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA-41) to retire
Post by: Alcon on January 19, 2012, 03:29:50 PM
LAAAAAAAADY


Title: Re: Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA-41) to retire
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 19, 2012, 03:31:50 PM
It says a lot about this forum that the jokes are about a certain Bakersfield resident attending college there and not the telethon guy.


Title: Re: Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA-41) to retire
Post by: krazen1211 on January 19, 2012, 09:40:17 PM
So Dreier quits or shifts to 8, and Gary Miller shifts to 31?

Miller is going to run in the Redlands-San Bernadino CD (is that CA-31?), and I suspect will be somewhat of an underdog. Drier has not announced what he is going to do, but his fundraising last quarter was anemic.  I am not sure he would win a primary in the Victorville-Adelanto based CD if that is CA-08.

Drier should move to Rancho and run in the new 31st, try to say nice things about Hispanics in Spanish media to depress turnout in SBD, and he would have a fighting chance. Miller would lose that district every single time. He seems like a douche. He should maybe move to Apple Valley and run in the desert district.

I thought that too. It makes more sense for Dreier to take the 56% Obama district sitting in (or bordering?) Los Angeles County while Garry Miller carpetbags over to the rural district to snooze for 5 terms.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 19, 2012, 11:48:20 PM
In regards to Hinchey, I've heard now that he had several operations for colon cancer, so this probably wasn't due to any redistricting threat.


Title: NC: Brad Miller retiring
Post by: Miles on January 26, 2012, 12:07:00 PM
The story. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/brad-miller-north-carolina_n_1233496.html)

He said Thursday that he did not want to run against fellow Rep. David Price (D-N.C.).

"I told David within a week of the election last year that with the Republicans in control of redistricting, we would almost certainly be drawn into the same district. And to be honest, since David has broadly hinted to me and others that he would only serve one more term, I believed that he would retire a term earlier than he intended in the circumstances. That obviously has not happened. David has made it very clear that he intends to run again," he said in a statement released to supporters. "I had two choices: run in a primary with David, or not seek another term."

"I do not have an agreement with David to step aside now and run in two years when he retires, as has been widely rumored, nor have I tried to strike any deal," he said. "The reality is that if I sat out a term and returned to Congress, I would be starting over for most purposes. I would have no assurance of my committee assignments and even if I won assignment to the same committees, I would lose all seniority. Just as important, the debate on the issues that I care about, and on which I am now a leader, would move on. No, I could not simply pick up where I left off."


Title: Re: NC: Brad Miller retiring
Post by: Miles on January 26, 2012, 09:53:56 PM
Wow. Am I the only one who cares about Brad Miller!?


Title: Re: NC: Brad Miller retiring
Post by: Sam Spade on January 26, 2012, 11:20:15 PM
Wow. Am I the only one who cares about Brad Miller!?

No, we just all knew he was done.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 26, 2012, 11:21:32 PM
And he was a nondescript hack anyway, so it's not as though you'd notice his electoral passing.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Miles on January 27, 2012, 04:05:11 PM
Despite a ton of chatter to the contrary, Howard Coble is running again.  (http://www.myfox8.com/news/wghp-story-howard-coble-announcement-friday-120127,0,871759.story)


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 31, 2012, 10:57:22 AM
IN-5: Dan Burton bows out.

http://nationaljournal.com/congress/facing-tough-primary-veteran-rep-burton-bows-out-20120131


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on January 31, 2012, 11:28:16 AM
IN-5: Dan Burton bows out.

http://nationaljournal.com/congress/facing-tough-primary-veteran-rep-burton-bows-out-20120131

R+1!!!


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on January 31, 2012, 05:15:58 PM
IN-5: Dan Burton bows out.

http://nationaljournal.com/congress/facing-tough-primary-veteran-rep-burton-bows-out-20120131

R+1!!!

R+15. This is one of the most conservative districts in the midwest.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Keystone Phil on January 31, 2012, 05:17:49 PM
IN-5: Dan Burton bows out.

http://nationaljournal.com/congress/facing-tough-primary-veteran-rep-burton-bows-out-20120131

R+1!!!

R+15. This is one of the most conservative districts in the midwest.

One of the most unintentionally hilarious posts in awhile.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on January 31, 2012, 05:21:43 PM
IN-5: Dan Burton bows out.

http://nationaljournal.com/congress/facing-tough-primary-veteran-rep-burton-bows-out-20120131

R+1!!!

R+15. This is one of the most conservative districts in the midwest.

One of the most unintentionally hilarious posts in awhile.

It's not ment to be funny.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on January 31, 2012, 07:55:02 PM
IN-5: Dan Burton bows out.

http://nationaljournal.com/congress/facing-tough-primary-veteran-rep-burton-bows-out-20120131

R+1!!!

R+15. This is one of the most conservative districts in the midwest.

One of the most unintentionally hilarious posts in awhile.

It's not ment to be funny.

You see, R+1, in this context, is referring to a Republican pickup. px75 is suggesting that the retirement of librul, RINO, might as well be a Democrat Dan Burton provides the perfect opportunity for a real Republican to take the seat. While 10 years ago, I would think that such a comment could only be considered sarcastic, today I'm not so sure.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 31, 2012, 08:02:46 PM
He didn't even get the PVI right, IN-05 is only about 53-47 McCain now.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: minionofmidas on February 01, 2012, 08:17:12 AM
IN-5: Dan Burton bows out.

http://nationaljournal.com/congress/facing-tough-primary-veteran-rep-burton-bows-out-20120131

R+1!!!

R+15. This is one of the most conservative districts in the midwest.

One of the most unintentionally hilarious posts in awhile.

It's not ment to be funny.

You see, R+1, in this context, is referring to a Republican pickup. px75 is suggesting that the retirement of librul, RINO, might as well be a Democrat Dan Burton provides the perfect opportunity for a real Republican to take the seat. While 10 years ago, I would think that such a comment could only be considered sarcastic, today I'm not so sure.
It was sarcastic.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 01, 2012, 11:25:01 AM
IN-5: Dan Burton bows out.

http://nationaljournal.com/congress/facing-tough-primary-veteran-rep-burton-bows-out-20120131

R+1!!!

R+15. This is one of the most conservative districts in the midwest.

One of the most unintentionally hilarious posts in awhile.

It's not ment to be funny.

Are you aware what "unintentionally" means?


Title: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: Keystone Phil on February 02, 2012, 05:06:00 PM
Just saw it on Politico and the NC 2012 thread but figured I'd post it here, too, for those that don't read the other sources.


Title: Re: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 02, 2012, 05:53:21 PM
Just saw it on Politico and the NC 2012 thread but figured I'd post it here, too, for those that don't read the other sources.

Good riddance.


Title: Re: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: Miles on February 02, 2012, 05:55:09 PM
Just saw it on Politico and the NC 2012 thread but figured I'd post it here, too, for those that don't read the other sources.

Good riddance.

Our House majority was built on the Heath Shulers and Gene Taylors. Our party would do well to remember that.

Love him or hate him, the fact is that we're one more seat short of re-taking the House.


Title: Re: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 02, 2012, 06:09:10 PM
Just saw it on Politico and the NC 2012 thread but figured I'd post it here, too, for those that don't read the other sources.

Good riddance.

Our House majority was built on the Heath Shulers and Gene Taylors. Our party would do well to remember that.

Love him or hate him, the fact is that we're one more seat short of re-taking the House.

I agree. Blue Dogs may not be the best, but they are still better than any generic Southern Republican.

Ideological purity will lead the party to one thing only: a permanent minority.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 02, 2012, 06:34:41 PM
Let's just hope that his predecessor doesn't try to take the seat back.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on February 02, 2012, 06:43:34 PM
It wasn't his conservative voting record that made Shuler so unlikable among liberals. As Ed Kilgore puts it:

Personally, I’ve never been a big fan of intra-party litmus tests or the various “framing” theories that suggest Democrats would win a decisive majority if we spoke without a single discordant voice. The only unimpeachable authorities on who is a “true Democrat” in the 11th congressional district of North Carolina—or anywhere else—are the Democratic voters of that area. And no, I don’t think it can be confidently assumed, these days at least, that a Republican replacement could not do worse.

But Shuler, like Joe Lieberman in the Senate (though for somewhat different reasons) is probably the exception who proves the rule. With the sole exception of his vote for Obama’s climate change legislation, Shuler broke with his party and its president on just about everything that mattered since 2008. He even voted for the abominable “Cut, Cap and Balance” resolution that if implemented would inevitably lead to the destruction of every progressive accomplishment since the 1930s. While that’s still not grounds for being expelled from the Caucus, it sure would justify, if I were in charge, denying him any perks and privileges associated with Caucus membership, up to and including men’s room keys in the Cannon Building. If that sounds petty, too bad; after all, a guy like Shuler would probably use these insults to burnish his reputation as someone who’ll stand up to the godless liberals.



Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: greenforest32 on February 02, 2012, 06:49:09 PM
It wasn't his conservative voting record that made Shuler so unlikable among liberals. As Ed Kilgore puts it:

Personally, I’ve never been a big fan of intra-party litmus tests or the various “framing” theories that suggest Democrats would win a decisive majority if we spoke without a single discordant voice. The only unimpeachable authorities on who is a “true Democrat” in the 11th congressional district of North Carolina—or anywhere else—are the Democratic voters of that area. And no, I don’t think it can be confidently assumed, these days at least, that a Republican replacement could not do worse.

But Shuler, like Joe Lieberman in the Senate (though for somewhat different reasons) is probably the exception who proves the rule. With the sole exception of his vote for Obama’s climate change legislation, Shuler broke with his party and its president on just about everything that mattered since 2008. He even voted for the abominable “Cut, Cap and Balance” resolution that if implemented would inevitably lead to the destruction of every progressive accomplishment since the 1930s. While that’s still not grounds for being expelled from the Caucus, it sure would justify, if I were in charge, denying him any perks and privileges associated with Caucus membership, up to and including men’s room keys in the Cannon Building. If that sounds petty, too bad; after all, a guy like Shuler would probably use these insults to burnish his reputation as someone who’ll stand up to the godless liberals.



He wasn't the only one voting for that: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll606.xml

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/172441-five-blue-dogs-join-gop-in-vote-for-cut-cap-and-balance-bill

Quote
Five Blue Dog Democrats joined House Republicans in backing a conservative plan to condition a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit with immediate spending cuts, an annual cap on spending and a strict balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.

Reps. Heath Shuler (N.C.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.) and Jim Cooper (Tenn.) all voted for the GOP "cut, cap and balance" plan that passed the House Tuesday on a vote of 234-190. The support from Democrats was a surprise, one GOP leadership aide said.


Title: Re: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 02, 2012, 09:15:07 PM
Just saw it on Politico and the NC 2012 thread but figured I'd post it here, too, for those that don't read the other sources.

Good riddance.

Our House majority was built on the Heath Shulers and Gene Taylors. Our party would do well to remember that.

Love him or hate him, the fact is that we're one more seat short of re-taking the House.

Shuler's one thing, but Gene Taylor voted for John McCain.  I know we need moderates, but really, what is a congressional majority if we have more Gene Taylors?


Title: Re: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: Miles on February 02, 2012, 09:29:17 PM
Just saw it on Politico and the NC 2012 thread but figured I'd post it here, too, for those that don't read the other sources.

Good riddance.

Our House majority was built on the Heath Shulers and Gene Taylors. Our party would do well to remember that.

Love him or hate him, the fact is that we're one more seat short of re-taking the House.

Shuler's one thing, but Gene Taylor voted for John McCain.  I know we need moderates, but really, what is a congressional majority if we have more Gene Taylors?

Taylor voted with the House Republican leadership 31% of the time....Palazzo votes with them 95% of the time.

That should say it all.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Brittain33 on February 02, 2012, 10:19:45 PM
Gene Taylor was an anachronism of the type we are very unlikely to see in more than a few districts in a few unusual circumstances.


Title: Re: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: smoltchanov on February 02, 2012, 10:25:25 PM
Just saw it on Politico and the NC 2012 thread but figured I'd post it here, too, for those that don't read the other sources.

Good riddance.

You want to be in permanent minority for next 20-30 years, but preserve your "pure progressive views"? Fine, you will get your wish.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 02, 2012, 10:26:53 PM
Gene Taylor was an anachronism of the type we are very unlikely to see in more than a few districts in a few unusual circumstances.

And like all the best anachronisms he was also an extremely atypical one in some respects.


Title: Re: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: smoltchanov on February 02, 2012, 10:33:49 PM
Shuler's one thing, but Gene Taylor voted for John McCain.  I know we need moderates, but really, what is a congressional majority if we have more Gene Taylors?

You need not only moderates - you need conservatives too. At least - moderate conservatives (that may be barely enough for majority). Remember - conservatives vastly outnumber liberals in the country. In addition - many Republicans congressmen didn't voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964, and, by present standards, he wasn't that bad. So what??  I am reasonably sure that Jacob Javits, Clifford Case and Nelson Rockefeller himself didn't, and i KNOW that some other didn't. And majority of Alabama's white  Democrats didn't vote for Obama. 70% of people in Taylor's district dislike Obama - whom must he follow - Obama or his voters? Again - he IS a REAL Democrat in his district


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Dancing with Myself on February 02, 2012, 11:02:03 PM
Looks like another potential gain for the Republcans in NC


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: smoltchanov on February 02, 2012, 11:07:12 PM
Looks like another potential gain for the Republcans in NC

With, as usual, a far-right candidate?)))). That would be utterly boring...


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Miles on February 02, 2012, 11:39:43 PM
Looks like another potential gain for the Republcans in NC


Title: Re: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on February 02, 2012, 11:58:54 PM
Just saw it on Politico and the NC 2012 thread but figured I'd post it here, too, for those that don't read the other sources.

Good riddance.

Our House majority was built on the Heath Shulers and Gene Taylors. Our party would do well to remember that.

Love him or hate him, the fact is that we're one more seat short of re-taking the House.

THANK YOU!!!!

I am tired of all the bashing of moderate Democrats on this forum (and, to a lesser extent, moderate Republicans). The Democrats need moderates to have a majority. Given how far to the right the Republicans have moved recently, the most important vote a Congressman makes as far as I'm concerned is their vote for Speaker, and as long as that person doesn't have an R next to their name, I'm not complaining.

I'd rather have a 230-205 Democratic majority with 150 DINOs than a 230-205 Republican majority with no DINOs.


Title: Re: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 03, 2012, 12:04:54 AM
Shuler's one thing, but Gene Taylor voted for John McCain.  I know we need moderates, but really, what is a congressional majority if we have more Gene Taylors?

You need not only moderates - you need conservatives too. At least - moderate conservatives (that may be barely enough for majority). Remember - conservatives vastly outnumber liberals in the country. In addition - many Republicans congressmen didn't voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964, and, by present standards, he wasn't that bad. So what??  I am reasonably sure that Jacob Javits, Clifford Case and Nelson Rockefeller himself didn't, and i KNOW that some other didn't. And majority of Alabama's white  Democrats didn't vote for Obama. 70% of people in Taylor's district dislike Obama - whom must he follow - Obama or his voters? Again - he IS a REAL Democrat in his district

I don't think it's right to say that conservatives outnumber liberals just because of what some polls say.  Democrats are more prone to call themselves moderate for the sake of saying they're moderate, so that takes many points away from the liberals.  The country really doesn't skew one way or another, in fact; it's pretty dead-center, when you look at the history of our elections.  I just feel that ideology has more meaning to it than party labels.  If you don't have a party that can fill out its promises, then you don't actually have real power or influence.  I respect the right of people in Taylor's district to elect who best represents them, but I'd personally view Taylor as more of a centrist/moderate Republican on the major issues.

For the record, I don't object to moderation in politics.  I'm moderate on certain issues, myself.  But you can only distance yourself from your party so much until you identify more with the opposite party, if that makes sense.


Title: Re: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: Frodo on February 03, 2012, 12:20:51 AM
I'd rather have a 230-205 Democratic majority with 150 DINOs than a 230-205 Republican majority with no DINOs.

I used to think the same way you and MilesC56 do until I saw our Democratic majorities in action the first two years of Obama's presidency.  I feel quite differently now.  Having a majority is useless if you can't pass basic liberal priorities, like the Employee Free Choice Act, or an Obamacare with a public option, or a stimulus package big enough not only to bring the economy out of free fall but also into a full Main Street-tangible recovery.  


Title: Re: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 03, 2012, 12:24:35 AM
I'd rather have a 230-205 Democratic majority with 150 DINOs than a 230-205 Republican majority with no DINOs.

I used to think the same way you and MilesC56 do until I saw our Democratic majorities in action the first two years of Obama's presidency.  I feel quite differently now.  Having a majority is useless if you can't pass basic liberal priorities, like the Employee Free Choice Act, or an Obamacare with a public option.  

I'm glad you came around. I'd settle for 146 Democrats who would actually be willing to block a veto override of any absolutely terrible bill. Then if there was ever a sane President, there'd be no more absolutely terrible bills.


Title: Re: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on February 03, 2012, 12:49:28 AM
I'd rather have a 230-205 Democratic majority with 150 DINOs than a 230-205 Republican majority with no DINOs.

I used to think the same way you and MilesC56 do until I saw our Democratic majorities in action the first two years of Obama's presidency.  I feel quite differently now.  Having a majority is useless if you can't pass basic liberal priorities, like the Employee Free Choice Act, or an Obamacare with a public option, or a stimulus package big enough not only to bring the economy out of free fall but also into a full Main Street-tangible recovery.  

Having a "useless" majority is still better than being in a perpetual minority where the lunatics on the far right control everything.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: DrScholl on February 03, 2012, 01:05:08 AM
I'm sure some of these extremist liberals supported North Carolina's egregious map, seeing as it got rid of some people they didn't like.

Really, I think Democrats need to start doing to the extremist liberals what Republicans are doing to moderates, booting them out. It's not as if the extreme ones are all that helpful to the party.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 03, 2012, 01:08:29 AM
I am fairly certain that the redistricting plan was mostly on partisan lines with a few ayes from people got favorable districts. The usuall crumbs thrown down by the majority to attract aye votes from the people getting screwed so as to give it a cover of bipartisanship.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Miles on February 03, 2012, 01:17:30 AM
I am fairly certain that the redistricting plan was mostly on partisan lines with a few ayes from people got favorable districts.

Yep. No Democrats in either chamber voted for the Congressional, Senate or House maps.


Title: Re: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: smoltchanov on February 03, 2012, 02:04:35 AM

I don't think it's right to say that conservatives outnumber liberals just because of what some polls say.  Democrats are more prone to call themselves moderate for the sake of saying they're moderate, so that takes many points away from the liberals.  The country really doesn't skew one way or another, in fact; it's pretty dead-center, when you look at the history of our elections.  I just feel that ideology has more meaning to it than party labels.  If you don't have a party that can fill out its promises, then you don't actually have real power or influence.  I respect the right of people in Taylor's district to elect who best represents them, but I'd personally view Taylor as more of a centrist/moderate Republican on the major issues.

For the record, I don't object to moderation in politics.  I'm moderate on certain issues, myself.  But you can only distance yourself from your party so much until you identify more with the opposite party, if that makes sense.

1. Conservatives outnumber liberals.  And by much. It's not "some polls", it's consistent polling year after year, so this is a scientific fact..

2. For me ideology isn't important at all. It's because of "ideological demands" that i refuse to be member of any party consistently. The only one thing that matters to me - you either want to win elections, or you don't. If you do - as written by  someone above - i would gladly take House with 230 Democrats  (of which 70 would be DINOs) and 205 Republicans (or vice versa with DINOs substituted on RINOs) over permanent Democratic caucus with 180 out 180 being "pure progressives" (or vice versa for Republicans with "bona-fide conservatives" substituted). Then - what will be will be. If you equate Democratic party with "liberal party" and Republican with "conservative party" - fine, but i am neither liberal, nor conservative. So - then i don't have place in any and must look for 3rd party to reflect my interests...

3. Remind me - which party were Larry McDonald, John Rarick and Bob Stump (initially)? And, on the other side - Jacob Javits, Clifford Case, Ogden Reid (initially) and Charles Whalen. And US was better governed then then now. BTW - the best American President (IMHO) - Franklin Roosevelt - worked very amicably with many conservative Democrats in his own party as well as with many Republicans as well. And got the results that was realistic. And what was unrealistic in his time (can you imagine DADT THEN? or even major Civil Rights laws?) was delayed until it became possible. He didn't conducted a "scorched earth" politics ("i am a boss - you are a fool, you are a boss - i am a fool") politics, which now is a trademark of BOTH political parties - Democrats as well as Republicans. If Obamacare is ahead of time - it must wait, if not - it will be accepted by majority not only of Democratic activists, but - majority of population.

4. I think - vast majority of people in Taylor's district will sharply disagree with you and call him "slightly liberal (for local tastes) Democrat". After all - he was defeated not for being "too conservative", but vice versa. And many who voted for Palazzo were Democrats))))


Title: Re: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: smoltchanov on February 03, 2012, 02:09:00 AM
[
I used to think the same way you and MilesC56 do until I saw our Democratic majorities in action the first two years of Obama's presidency.  I feel quite differently now.  Having a majority is useless if you can't pass basic liberal priorities, like the Employee Free Choice Act, or an Obamacare with a public option, or a stimulus package big enough not only to bring the economy out of free fall but also into a full Main Street-tangible recovery.  

You get what's realistically possible. If majority of the people oppose "Obamacare with a public option" - you have to accept it, it's Democracy after all. Or, if you insist - bear with electoral consequences (as it was in 2010) and relegate yourself to permanent minority status at least until such politics becomes more popular and accepted. The same with stimulus and all other issues. In 2010 more people agreed with "solid" Republican opposition on these issues then supported, and expressed that at voting booth. What will 20112 show - we shall see.


Title: Re: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: smoltchanov on February 03, 2012, 02:11:25 AM

I'm glad you came around. I'd settle for 146 Democrats who would actually be willing to block a veto override of any absolutely terrible bill. Then if there was ever a sane President, there'd be no more absolutely terrible bills.

Sane and electable  President from a party which was only able to elect 146 House members???? Impossible mathematically. You must be kidding)))


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: smoltchanov on February 03, 2012, 02:15:41 AM
I'm sure some of these extremist liberals supported North Carolina's egregious map, seeing as it got rid of some people they didn't like.

Really, I think Democrats need to start doing to the extremist liberals what Republicans are doing to moderates, booting them out. It's not as if the extreme ones are all that helpful to the party.

Right now different thing happens: extremists in both parties boot all other people (who dare to disagree with them on some issues) out . With very loud shouting cry after first "apostasy" -  "primary them!!!". And in place of "big tent" you have 2 big extremists groups "on the edges of political spectrum".. and glaring empty space between them....


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Miles on February 03, 2012, 02:40:39 AM
I'm sure some of these extremist liberals supported North Carolina's egregious map, seeing as it got rid of some people they didn't like.

Really, I think Democrats need to start doing to the extremist liberals what Republicans are doing to moderates, booting them out. It's not as if the extreme ones are all that helpful to the party.

Right now different thing happens: extremists in both parties boot all other people (who dare to disagree with them on some issues) out . With very loud shouting cry after first "apostasy" -  "primary them!!!". And in place of "big tent" you have 2 big extremists groups "on the edges of political spectrum".. and glaring empty space between them....
Exactly. I went on the DailyKos today defending Shuler and I seemed like a conservative Republican compared to the liberals attacking me :P


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: smoltchanov on February 03, 2012, 02:55:50 AM

Exactly. I went on the DailyKos today defending Shuler and I seemed like a conservative Republican compared to the liberals attacking me :P

Yes. I simply can't understand how supposedly clever people (and political geeks to boot) may prefer to live next 20 years in dire minority only to "preserve pureness of politial views". Long ago one clever man gave a formula i subscribe since: Democrats must run the most liberal candidate who can win in given district, Republicans - the most conservative who can win. But IF the district is such that this "most liberal electable candidate" is to the right of Bobby Bright or even James Eastland - so be it, run such candidate! And if that "most conservative, but electable" candidate on Republican side is to the left of Jacob Javits - run him!!! After all it happens on local level (yes, i know that many races on that level are, technically, nonpartisan, but still - ...): Republicans ran Bloomberg for NYC mayor, and they (Republicans) didn't went to Hell, and Democrats until very recently had mayor in Florida (Jim Naugle) who supported Bush in 2000, McCain in 2008 and Santorum in 2012 - and world still exist.

P.S. I have accounts on both DKE and RRH, but don't comment anymore on either of them. The reason is exactly as in your case with only difference that on DKE it's "liberal Democrats", who play the attackers, and on RRH, it's, naturally, "conservative Republicans". The mirror images of each other)))))


Title: Re: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: Mr.Phips on February 03, 2012, 05:09:45 PM
Just saw it on Politico and the NC 2012 thread but figured I'd post it here, too, for those that don't read the other sources.

Good riddance.

You want to be in permanent minority for next 20-30 years, but preserve your "pure progressive views"? Fine, you will get your wish.

Im wondering if Republicans will beat the Democrats' near 62 year run of the House from 1932 to 1994.  Republicans have controlled the House for 14 of the last 18 years and if they hold the House for the rest of the decade it will be 24 out of 28 years. 


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 03, 2012, 08:13:17 PM
Shut up.


Title: Re: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: smoltchanov on February 06, 2012, 01:36:11 AM
Just saw it on Politico and the NC 2012 thread but figured I'd post it here, too, for those that don't read the other sources.

Good riddance.

You want to be in permanent minority for next 20-30 years, but preserve your "pure progressive views"? Fine, you will get your wish.

Im wondering if Republicans will beat the Democrats' near 62 year run of the House from 1932 to 1994.  Republicans have controlled the House for 14 of the last 18 years and if they hold the House for the rest of the decade it will be 24 out of 28 years. 

Surely - no. With Republican party "going right" with even greater speed then Democrats "go left" - no chance at all.


Title: Re: Heath Shuler is retiring.
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 06, 2012, 04:48:04 PM

I don't think it's right to say that conservatives outnumber liberals just because of what some polls say.  Democrats are more prone to call themselves moderate for the sake of saying they're moderate, so that takes many points away from the liberals.  The country really doesn't skew one way or another, in fact; it's pretty dead-center, when you look at the history of our elections.  I just feel that ideology has more meaning to it than party labels.  If you don't have a party that can fill out its promises, then you don't actually have real power or influence.  I respect the right of people in Taylor's district to elect who best represents them, but I'd personally view Taylor as more of a centrist/moderate Republican on the major issues.

For the record, I don't object to moderation in politics.  I'm moderate on certain issues, myself.  But you can only distance yourself from your party so much until you identify more with the opposite party, if that makes sense.

1. Conservatives outnumber liberals.  And by much. It's not "some polls", it's consistent polling year after year, so this is a scientific fact..

2. For me ideology isn't important at all. It's because of "ideological demands" that i refuse to be member of any party consistently. The only one thing that matters to me - you either want to win elections, or you don't. If you do - as written by  someone above - i would gladly take House with 230 Democrats  (of which 70 would be DINOs) and 205 Republicans (or vice versa with DINOs substituted on RINOs) over permanent Democratic caucus with 180 out 180 being "pure progressives" (or vice versa for Republicans with "bona-fide conservatives" substituted). Then - what will be will be. If you equate Democratic party with "liberal party" and Republican with "conservative party" - fine, but i am neither liberal, nor conservative. So - then i don't have place in any and must look for 3rd party to reflect my interests...

3. Remind me - which party were Larry McDonald, John Rarick and Bob Stump (initially)? And, on the other side - Jacob Javits, Clifford Case, Ogden Reid (initially) and Charles Whalen. And US was better governed then then now. BTW - the best American President (IMHO) - Franklin Roosevelt - worked very amicably with many conservative Democrats in his own party as well as with many Republicans as well. And got the results that was realistic. And what was unrealistic in his time (can you imagine DADT THEN? or even major Civil Rights laws?) was delayed until it became possible. He didn't conducted a "scorched earth" politics ("i am a boss - you are a fool, you are a boss - i am a fool") politics, which now is a trademark of BOTH political parties - Democrats as well as Republicans. If Obamacare is ahead of time - it must wait, if not - it will be accepted by majority not only of Democratic activists, but - majority of population.

4. I think - vast majority of people in Taylor's district will sharply disagree with you and call him "slightly liberal (for local tastes) Democrat". After all - he was defeated not for being "too conservative", but vice versa. And many who voted for Palazzo were Democrats))))

Uh, no.  It's not as simple as asking a bunch of people which box they can categorically be placed into.  To determine which direction the country leans overall, you'd have to closely look at electoral trends of the country, various polls on specific issues, demographics, statistics, etc.  Pretty much like what we do on this board.  This country has no left or right lean to it and is very much at the center.  And in case you haven't been paying attention, social conservatism is on a steady decline right now.  You definitely can't make that argument with any credibility.

If you don't understand the significance of ideology in politics, then I don't think you understand politics at all.  In order to have a political party with any credibility or influence at all, you need a set of ideology-based demands.  You need something to bring to the table.  If you constantly agree with your opponent on everything, then you don't have any political capital or legitimacy.  So if the Democratic Party focuses all its resources on people like Gene Taylor for "bipartisanship", then our supposed majority would be just as useless for us as a Republican majority and the Democrats wouldn't make the reforms they said they would... just like with health care.

Back in FDR's time, both parties were very moderate and the issues of the day were different than now.  Today's Democrats running the show have compromised over everything.  I fail to see how we're guilty for the brokenness in Washington.

Well, of course many Democrats voted for Palazzo.  This is Mississippi, after all.  Most Democrats in that district are actually very conservative Republicans on both social and economic issues.  Progressives didn't even turn out to vote in 2010.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: smoltchanov on February 07, 2012, 02:26:12 AM
Well, Mr. Scott, i understand politics. Probably - much better then you are. I study it for 40 years (since i was a high school student in Moscow) I clearly understand importance of ideology in parliamentary democracy of European style, where there are 4-6 parties, and where the government is frequently coalitional. But i don't understand (and don't intend to) usage of similar criteria in a country ,where there are only 2 big political parties. It's too few for them to be strictly ideological(what gradually happens during last quarter century and reached unthincable level recently), and clever political leaders of Roosevelt-Kennedy time understood it quite well. They also understood (contrary to you) that politics is "an art of compromise", and  not (as i mentioned above) misuse of "i am a boss - you are a fool, you are a boss - i am a fool" approach. Contrary to present leaders and many extreme "activists", who became to dominate BOTH political parties approximately since Reagan. It seems that it's you, who doesn't want to understandsuch simple statements, so my offer is to agree to disagree and ignore each other in the future. We will not come to any agreement  on BASIC principles, so - what for? Be in permanent minority with your "pristine party" if you want, you will only help Republicans with that, and they will gladly accept such your help. And leave all, who is not "pure" (it doesn't matter whether they are populist on economy and social conservatives or fiscal conservatives and social liberals) alone. You don't want to adapt to them and accept them? You will pay for that by forfeiting majority and power.


Title: Re: Another NC retirement
Post by: Miles on February 07, 2012, 04:33:15 PM
My Congresswoman, Sue Myrick, is retiring. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/07/1062548/-NC-09-Republican-Rep-Sue-Myrick-will-retire)

Good riddance!

Myrick was part of the class of 1994; as such, she took one of Gingrich's pledges to only serve 7 terms. Of course, she broke that pledge by running in 2008.

Obviously, no chance of a Democratic pickup.

Numbers:

- Even though this district swung 20 points to Obama in 2008 (he lost here 54-45 compared to Kerry's 64-35), the average for local Republicans is almost 60%.

- Kay Hagan also overperformed here; she got 46% and held Dole to only 50%.

- And of course, the bottom fell out for Perdue, as she only got 32% against McCrory.



Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Miles on February 07, 2012, 05:51:01 PM
Some possible replacements for Myrick:

- State Sen. Bob Rucho (http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/members/viewMember.pl?sChamber=S&nUserID=11). My Senator :(. The mastermind behind the so-called "fair and legal" Republican redistricting maps. He Chaired the Senate redistricting Committee and drew the maps; much like Brad Miller did 10 years ago. He lives in Matthews. From what I've seen, he has a good relationship with Myrick.

- State Rep. Ruth Samuleson. (http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/members/viewMember.pl?nUserID=563&sChamber=H) My representative :( . Her district includes the more affluent parts of south-central Mecklenburg county.

- House Speaker Thom Tillis. (http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/members/viewMember.pl?sChamber=House&nUserID=565) Lives in northern Mecklenburg county. Still I'm not sure he'd want to run for Congress; with the Republicans having likely control of the Assembly for the next decade, his position as Speaker should be pretty secure. I've heard rumors that he plans to run against Hagan in 2014.

- John Lassiter. (http://charlotte.about.com/od/voterinformation/p/john_lassiter.htm) He was on the Charlotte city council and ran against Anthony Foxx for Charlotte mayor in 2009, losing by 3,000 votes. Haven't heard much from him since.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 07, 2012, 08:08:46 PM
Well, Mr. Scott, i understand politics. Probably - much better then you are. I study it for 40 years (since i was a high school student in Moscow) I clearly understand importance of ideology in parliamentary democracy of European style, where there are 4-6 parties, and where the government is frequently coalitional. But i don't understand (and don't intend to) usage of similar criteria in a country ,where there are only 2 big political parties. It's too few for them to be strictly ideological(what gradually happens during last quarter century and reached unthincable level recently), and clever political leaders of Roosevelt-Kennedy time understood it quite well. They also understood (contrary to you) that politics is "an art of compromise", and  not (as i mentioned above) misuse of "i am a boss - you are a fool, you are a boss - i am a fool" approach. Contrary to present leaders and many extreme "activists", who became to dominate BOTH political parties approximately since Reagan. It seems that it's you, who doesn't want to understandsuch simple statements, so my offer is to agree to disagree and ignore each other in the future. We will not come to any agreement  on BASIC principles, so - what for? Be in permanent minority with your "pristine party" if you want, you will only help Republicans with that, and they will gladly accept such your help. And leave all, who is not "pure" (it doesn't matter whether they are populist on economy and social conservatives or fiscal conservatives and social liberals) alone. You don't want to adapt to them and accept them? You will pay for that by forfeiting majority and power.

For the love of God.  I don't oppose compromise or bipartisanship, I oppose turning back on what you promised to your constituents for the mere gesture of bipartisanship, especially when you're dealing with another party that doesn't want to concede anything themselves.  But if you want to end this discussion and shun each other, then that's fine by me.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Miles on February 07, 2012, 08:20:58 PM
Scott and smoltchanov...this is turning into a thread hijack. Please take it elsewhere. I think you both have a good understanding of politics.



Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: smoltchanov on February 07, 2012, 10:41:33 PM
For the love of God.  I don't oppose compromise or bipartisanship, I oppose turning back on what you promised to your constituents for the mere gesture of bipartisanship, especially when you're dealing with another party that doesn't want to concede anything themselves.  But if you want to end this discussion and shun each other, then that's fine by me.

As  correctly stated by Miles - we deviated from original theme. I simply don't see the need to continue - for me the most important thing is to win the election, and, because the elections are conducted by district, you simply MUST run a candidate that suits the district (liberal in SF, conservative in rural Louisiana for example) in order to maximize your chances. All ideological criteria are secondary and much less important to me. That's obviously not so for you. So - there is no purpose to continue. Let's conclude with that and let's not (again using Miles's words) "highjack" the theme)))


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Joe Republic on February 08, 2012, 12:21:44 AM
In honor of Sue Myrick...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SrAe21fi_4c


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: minionofmidas on February 09, 2012, 05:51:18 AM
Some possible replacements for Myrick:

- State Sen. Bob Rucho (http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/members/viewMember.pl?sChamber=S&nUserID=11). My Senator :(. The mastermind behind the so-called "fair and legal" Republican redistricting maps. He Chaired the Senate redistricting Committee and drew the maps; much like Brad Miller did 10 years ago. He lives in Matthews. From what I've seen, he has a good relationship with Myrick.
That sounds like the fix was in from the start.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 10, 2012, 12:53:01 AM
Myrick is retiring? Interesting.




Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Miles on February 29, 2012, 11:20:45 AM
Dreier is retiring. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/david-dreier-retirement-california-congressman_n_1310215.html)

Not surprising, considering what happened to his district.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: minionofmidas on February 29, 2012, 01:35:47 PM
Dreier is retiring. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/david-dreier-retirement-california-congressman_n_1310215.html)

Not surprising, considering what happened to his district.
Overdue announcement. No shocker to anybody.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 29, 2012, 02:18:11 PM
Someone missed a prime opportunity for a little double entendre there. So I'll do it.

David Dreier is out.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: minionofmidas on March 02, 2012, 11:53:15 AM
Normative Penises bow out, according to a mispost in the Snowe thread.


Title: Re: Another NC retirement
Post by: I'm JewCon in name only. on March 03, 2012, 12:01:15 AM
My Congresswoman, Sue Myrick, is retiring. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/07/1062548/-NC-09-Republican-Rep-Sue-Myrick-will-retire)

Good riddance!

Myrick was part of the class of 1994; as such, she took one of Gingrich's pledges to only serve 7 terms. Of course, she broke that pledge by running in 2008.

Obviously, no chance of a Democratic pickup.

Numbers:

- Even though this district swung 20 points to Obama in 2008 (he lost here 54-45 compared to Kerry's 64-35), the average for local Republicans is almost 60%.

- Kay Hagan also overperformed here; she got 46% and held Dole to only 50%.

- And of course, the bottom fell out for Perdue, as she only got 32% against McCrory.



How did I miss this, and the Shuler retirement?  Two of my congresspeople won't be in office next year :'(


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on March 15, 2012, 07:11:33 PM
Gary Ackerman retires.

http://www.cityandstateny.com/ackerman-seek-re-election-either/ (http://www.cityandstateny.com/ackerman-seek-re-election-either/)



Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: minionofmidas on March 16, 2012, 02:38:22 PM
Gary Ackerman retires.

http://www.cityandstateny.com/ackerman-seek-re-election-either/ (http://www.cityandstateny.com/ackerman-seek-re-election-either/)


Unexpected.

Expected a long long time ago before the wiener pics, though.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: DrScholl on April 04, 2012, 05:40:11 PM
Tim Johnson drops out in IL-13. http://capitolfax.com/2012/04/04/this-just-in-tim-johnson-to-drop-out/


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Vosem on April 04, 2012, 06:13:31 PM
Tim Johnson drops out in IL-13. http://capitolfax.com/2012/04/04/this-just-in-tim-johnson-to-drop-out/

Local party committees get to pick a new candidate (though it seems top Republicans are trying to dissuade Johnson). Could it be Bill Brady? I think he lives in this district.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: I'm JewCon in name only. on April 04, 2012, 06:39:40 PM
Tim Johnson drops out in IL-13. http://capitolfax.com/2012/04/04/this-just-in-tim-johnson-to-drop-out/

Scandal? or just decided to retire?


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on April 04, 2012, 08:08:02 PM
He's a backbencher's backbencher, so boring and nondescript that I can't imagine he would have any kind of scandal going on.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Sam Spade on April 04, 2012, 08:18:56 PM
Remember that the primary has already passed here.  Tim Johnson already won it, which likely means he'll get to essentially appoint his successor.

Furthermore, this district is pretty marginal.  Tim Johnson running scared most of the high-profile Dems away, and the primary was won by perennial candidate and general nut David Gill, which means that the Republican is pretty much assured of winning.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Chancellor Tanterterg on April 04, 2012, 08:35:00 PM
Remember that the primary has already passed here.  Tim Johnson already won it, which likely means he'll get to essentially appoint his successor.

Furthermore, this district is pretty marginal.  Tim Johnson running scared most of the high-profile Dems away, and the primary was won by perennial candidate and general nut David Gill, which means that the Republican is pretty much assured of winning.

Couldn't the Democrats make a Connecticut for Lieberman-esque third party and run a stronger candidate?


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Mr.Phips on April 05, 2012, 03:15:36 AM
Remember that the primary has already passed here.  Tim Johnson already won it, which likely means he'll get to essentially appoint his successor.

Furthermore, this district is pretty marginal.  Tim Johnson running scared most of the high-profile Dems away, and the primary was won by perennial candidate and general nut David Gill, which means that the Republican is pretty much assured of winning.

Larry Buschon was seen as a nut in IN-08 and raised almost no money, but won easily by default when Ellsworth retired.  Gill got 42% in 2006 in a district that was R+6.  The new district is D+1.  A swing of eight points and DCCC money could easily push him over the top. 


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: minionofmidas on April 06, 2012, 03:41:59 AM
Got your april fools' joke out three days late, Tim.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Chancellor Tanterterg on April 06, 2012, 09:33:00 AM
Got your april fools' joke out three days late, Tim.
 

Is he not retiring after all?


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on April 06, 2012, 04:51:12 PM
Tim Johnson drops out in IL-13. http://capitolfax.com/2012/04/04/this-just-in-tim-johnson-to-drop-out/

Local party committees get to pick a new candidate (though it seems top Republicans are trying to dissuade Johnson). Could it be Bill Brady? I think he lives in this district.

http://wuisnews.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/clarke-will-try-for-johnsons-seat/

Quote
Others who have expressed interest in the vacancy include state representatives Adam Brown of Decatur,  Chapin Rose of Mahomet and  Dan Brady of Bloomington. Senator Bill Brady of Bloomington says he won’t try for the job.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: minionofmidas on April 07, 2012, 03:50:38 AM
Got your april fools' joke out three days late, Tim.
 

Is he not retiring after all?
He is retiring. But that piece of news so soon after the primary feels like an april fool's joke.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on April 07, 2012, 04:16:01 AM
Got your april fools' joke out three days late, Tim.
 

Is he not retiring after all?
He is retiring. But that piece of news so soon after the primary feels like an april fool's joke.

Let me guess, the machine will pick a close relative with sh**tty views like they did for Dan Lipinski.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: minionofmidas on April 07, 2012, 04:18:37 AM
A sh!tty pick would put this race firmly back on the map. Obviously David Gill is too extreme to settle in in this district, but he may not be too extreme for a one-off victory in a presidential year against a sh!t opponent.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Chancellor Tanterterg on April 07, 2012, 08:44:07 AM
Tim Johnson drops out in IL-13. http://capitolfax.com/2012/04/04/this-just-in-tim-johnson-to-drop-out/

Local party committees get to pick a new candidate (though it seems top Republicans are trying to dissuade Johnson). Could it be Bill Brady? I think he lives in this district.

http://wuisnews.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/clarke-will-try-for-johnsons-seat/

Quote
Others who have expressed interest in the vacancy include state representatives Adam Brown of Decatur,  Chapin Rose of Mahomet and  Dan Brady of Bloomington. Senator Bill Brady of Bloomington says he won’t try for the job.
 

Are Dan and Bill Brady related?


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Meeker on April 07, 2012, 11:01:49 AM
Perhaps Don Manzullo could run.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: muon2 on April 07, 2012, 11:46:48 AM
Tim Johnson drops out in IL-13. http://capitolfax.com/2012/04/04/this-just-in-tim-johnson-to-drop-out/

Local party committees get to pick a new candidate (though it seems top Republicans are trying to dissuade Johnson). Could it be Bill Brady? I think he lives in this district.

http://wuisnews.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/clarke-will-try-for-johnsons-seat/

Quote
Others who have expressed interest in the vacancy include state representatives Adam Brown of Decatur,  Chapin Rose of Mahomet and  Dan Brady of Bloomington. Senator Bill Brady of Bloomington says he won’t try for the job.
 

Are Dan and Bill Brady related?

No.

The selection is complicated by the timing. The primary returns are not certified yet, so Johnson can't withdraw until that happens. The parties do not elect county chairs until April 18 when the newly elected committeemen will meet. Those chairs (14 for IL-13) will vote for a ballot replacement.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: minionofmidas on April 07, 2012, 11:51:12 AM
The selection is complicated by the timing. The primary returns are not certified yet, so Johnson can't withdraw until that happens.
Lol. :D


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: RogueBeaver on April 15, 2012, 09:02:51 PM
Edolphus Towns (D-NY) retiring.

http://www.rollcall.com/politics/casualtylist.html?pos=opol


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on April 15, 2012, 09:12:47 PM
Edolphus Towns (D-NY) retiring.

http://www.rollcall.com/politics/casualtylist.html?pos=opol

Not surprising, since he hasn't been doing any campaigning whatsoever.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 15, 2012, 09:34:56 PM
Edolphus Towns (D-NY) retiring.

http://www.rollcall.com/politics/casualtylist.html?pos=opol

Not surprising, since he hasn't been doing any campaigning whatsoever.

He doesn't exactly need to campaign for that seat.


Title: Re: Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements
Post by: Nhoj on April 15, 2012, 09:39:33 PM
Edolphus Towns (D-NY) retiring.

http://www.rollcall.com/politics/casualtylist.html?pos=opol

Not surprising, since he hasn't been doing any campaigning whatsoever.

He doesn't exactly need to campaign for that seat.
In the primary he kinda does. Considering he already had a strong opponent against him in it.